dismissedJUL202026_01B52032026-07-20 · combined

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner, an industrial engineer, worked on developing manufacturing processes for composite and recycled materials, claiming these innovations underpinned his employer's featured product lines and client licensing relationships.

Field: industrial/manufacturing engineering (composite and recycled materials) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the evidence did not establish his record of success in related efforts, his progress towards achieving his endeavor, or interest from potential or other relevant entities”

“it did not sufficiently discuss his proposed endeavor or his progress in achieving it, success in improving manufacturing techniques for composites and other recycled materials, or his record of success”

“the new evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner's claimed record of success at his employer, his progress towards achieving his endeavor, or interest from potential or other relevant entities”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“it did not sufficiently discuss his proposed endeavor or his progress in achieving it, success in improving manufacturing techniques for composites and other recycled materials, or his record of success”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the new evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner's claimed record of success at his employer, his progress towards achieving his endeavor, or interest from potential or other relevant entities”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner did not properly define the relationship between his employer and the client, provide a supporting licensing agreement, or demonstrate that the Petitioner's work was the basis of this agreement as claimed”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

908coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This decision resolves combined motions to reopen and reconsider following a prior dismissed appeal; the AAO expressly declined to reach prong 3 because the prong 2 finding was dispositive, citing the doctrine against purely advisory agency findings. The AAO repeatedly credited the petitioner as a valuable, competent employee while still finding the evidence insufficient to tie his specific innovations to the employer's high-profile projects and client relationships.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Matter of Coelho
Matter of Ho
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer